GeneralMayhem
Chieftain
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2010
- Messages
- 53
i noticed during a late game playthrough, that subs can't go within enemy borders without an open border exchange. am i missing something here? this seems rather stupid. 
Subs can't go within enemy borders?
- Thread starter GeneralMayhem
- Start date
I think subs should have "stealth nationality" like Civ4 privateers unless you manage to destroy them, then you find out whose they were. (But only if you have 1-2 subs inside the other civ's borders at a time, to keep people from just making a massive sub fleet and killing everything with no diplomatic consequences because they can't be sunk.) If a sub gets caught operating in another civ's waters during a time of peace, it should be a cause for war.
Of course, this would have to come after the AI is changed so that it recognizes valid reasons for wars, instead of applying a flat penalty to human players whenever they take a city no matter what.
Of course, this would have to come after the AI is changed so that it recognizes valid reasons for wars, instead of applying a flat penalty to human players whenever they take a city no matter what.
cephalo
Deity
Subs are stealthy but by no means invisible. Any destroyer can spot them.
There is nothing stopping any of your units from entering another civs territory except your agreement not to do so. There is nothing different about subs in this regard. The border is a representation of your own policy. If you're willing to go to war, then your units go where they have the power to go.
There is nothing stopping any of your units from entering another civs territory except your agreement not to do so. There is nothing different about subs in this regard. The border is a representation of your own policy. If you're willing to go to war, then your units go where they have the power to go.
GeneralMayhem
Chieftain
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2010
- Messages
- 53
but why can't subs go on tiles that are within another empires borders? subs today are still used to infiltrate and spy on other nations. i remember civ 4 that subs could go unimpeded within border sea tiles. at the least, have a check for stealth, and if the sub fails units can fire on the sub without causing war...no? and how can ancient units kill a sub they must have used the force and put an arrow in the exposed conduit duct. lol
I've seen Russian submarines sink for less.
I also don't see much value in this feature. As said, only for a brief period in history, submarines were really undetectable. With sonar, they are just another bleep on the radar.
What if you could make *any* ship nationality-less, turning it into a privateer.
Subs shouldn't be allowed in borders IMO, in real life subs don't cross into sovereign territory in peace time, although I see the value of letting them do it and why people might think they do. That said since destroyers come out before subs what good are they anyway. In addition the game does lack intel abilities pretty badly, I.e. Air recon missions, spies, etc.
This could be where espionage points concept enter.
You buy super stealthy buff for your unit for X turns with your EP. For those turns your subs are undetectable, cannot attack, but have impoved visibility range to gather intelligence. IMHO also much better use of units than simply manufacturing spy units.
I'm sure US/Russian/chinese subs, violate soveriegn borders all the time to test defenses, and do surveillance work.
You buy super stealthy buff for your unit for X turns with your EP. For those turns your subs are undetectable, cannot attack, but have impoved visibility range to gather intelligence. IMHO also much better use of units than simply manufacturing spy units.
I'm sure US/Russian/chinese subs, violate soveriegn borders all the time to test defenses, and do surveillance work.
Becephalus
King
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2005
- Messages
- 725
This is a very abstract game, when a crossbowman kills a submarine you are a fool if you think that represents an actual crossbowman shooting their crossbow at a sub.
Stop being so literally minded, if you are all versions of civ will simply drive you nuts.
Stop being so literally minded, if you are all versions of civ will simply drive you nuts.
I actually like subs more in Civ5. In 4, I never used them because there was no ranged bombardment, so nothing mattered in a naval unit except its raw strength, so battleships were better. Civ5 subs are stealthy and can make a devastating ranged attack against other ships, just like they do in real life. In real naval warfare, a sub probably isn't going to launch its torpedoes after surfacing and getting within range of the other ship's deck guns.
AlpsStranger
Jump jump on the tiger!
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2009
- Messages
- 5,820
At the risk of causing Professor SRS McHistoryMajor to show up in the thread that's really funny
Louis XXIV
Le Roi Soleil
Yeah, I agree they should be able to violate borders without open border agreements (US-Soviet relations will testify to this). Then again, they can also torpedo over land, so I guess it balances out 
kooboo
Lurker
Spoiler :
Spoiler :
Spoiler :
I don't believe more examples are needed to prove what you said is completely wrong.
Subs should avoid zone of control, borders and should only been detectable AND attackable only by units which actually can "see" them. No proxy "seen" as crossbows attacking subs.
STOP GIVING REAL LIFE INCIDENTS
You are playing a game, not a historical simulator.
Nobody cares if it's occurred in real life or not. Nobody. What we care is about game balance. If it makes you happy assume that your civilization has sonar stations along the coast, but whatever. This isn't a
ing debate class.
You're playing a game where you can produce an infinite amount of troops from a city. Where did all these people come from? Was cloning invented in 4000 bc? How do the pyramids increase worker construction speed? How come the great wall doesn't keep barbarians out? How come you can't use enemy roads? How can an island city pump 10 wonders out? Do they have matter replicators?
I know some moderator is going to give me an infraction, but this needs to be told. You're playing a game. Trying to explain Civ by using historical references is like trying to find historical evidence for every single piece of scripture in the bible. It doesn't exist. Capiche?
You are playing a game, not a historical simulator.
Nobody cares if it's occurred in real life or not. Nobody. What we care is about game balance. If it makes you happy assume that your civilization has sonar stations along the coast, but whatever. This isn't a
ing debate class.You're playing a game where you can produce an infinite amount of troops from a city. Where did all these people come from? Was cloning invented in 4000 bc? How do the pyramids increase worker construction speed? How come the great wall doesn't keep barbarians out? How come you can't use enemy roads? How can an island city pump 10 wonders out? Do they have matter replicators?
I know some moderator is going to give me an infraction, but this needs to be told. You're playing a game. Trying to explain Civ by using historical references is like trying to find historical evidence for every single piece of scripture in the bible. It doesn't exist. Capiche?
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2008
- Messages
- 14,928
Not really. Submarines are fearsome weapons because the have a much larger playing area than any other weapon. A nuclear submarine fleet is far more fearsome than an aircraft carrier fleet. Then again, since Civ5 continues the proud tradition of going from going from Civil War era ironclads to WW2 Destroyers and Battleships and Aircraft Carriers, I'm not too surprised about problems with navy units.
kooboo
Lurker
Not capiche.
With this reasoning I could expect navy throwing angry bobcats at the enemy even though historically it attacked with cannons just because I'm playing a game not a historical simulator.
If you see a plane in a game you expect it will fly not plow fields. If you have submarine in game you expect it to be able to do something similar as it does in real life. And in real life they cross borders. Simple as that.
I'm speaking only for myself, but I care if units behave as close as their real-life counterparts (game permitting). I also believe that plenty of people care about this as well. Otherwise tell me why people are angry at bowmen safely shooting rifleman (and not being shot back) or crossbowmen sinking submarines.
Might sound oddly to you but units in previous Civ games tried to imitate their real life use. Actually apart from suicide siege engines most units did really fine.
No city in CiV is able to produce infinite amount of troops. Also - people migrate, are conscripted, press-ganged or join voluntarily to military.
Units in civ represent armies. Moving an army isn't simply walking them to a different place. It's a huge chain of supply, wagon trains, man reinforcements etc. Not being able to "use" enemy roads imitate that you are in enemy territory, nobody support you, supplies have hard way reaching army and army moves as fast as it's slowest part.
STOP GIVING REAL LIFE INCIDENTS
You are playing a game, not a historical simulator.
Nobody cares if it's occurred in real life or not. Nobody. What we care is about game balance. If it makes you happy assume that your civilization has sonar stations along the coast, but whatever. This isn't a
You're playing a game where you can produce an infinite amount of troops from a city. Where did all these people come from? Was cloning invented in 4000 bc? How do the pyramids increase worker construction speed? How come the great wall doesn't keep barbarians out? How come you can't use enemy roads? How can an island city pump 10 wonders out? Do they have matter replicators?
I know some moderator is going to give me an infraction, but this needs to be told. You're playing a game. Trying to explain Civ by using historical references is like trying to find historical evidence for every single piece of scripture in the bible. It doesn't exist. Capiche?
eeep overkill on the rant level, yes its a game it which many people suspend their disbelief in different ways!
but most units in the game have certain attributes that makes them different to other, THAT is why there are so many in the game. i am extremely surprised that subs cant go into borders because i agree with some of the other posters here.
if a submarine cant do the one cool thing that submarines do in real life (see historical stories like Japanese subs in Sydney Harbour in World War Two) why have them in games? Subs are all about being covert and being an unseen vehicle of potential great damage. 'Sleeper' units in enemy and friendly territory, if they cant go void borders why have them? you might as well just build a destroyer?
Louis XXIV
Le Roi Soleil
Completely off topic, but it's actually spelled "Capisce". Hate to nitpick, but I see this quite a lot.
